|
Back to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL
Homepage
Review & Comment: "Who governs rural Scotland?
PeopleTOO conference,
Dewar Centre, Perth 29th October 2004
Part 2:
From science to policy and management
Dr James Irvine
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
Perthshire
Filed 21 Nov 04
©www.land-care.org.uk
Following the introduction to the conference by
Kirsty Macleod (1), the first paper of the
meeting - entitled "From science to policy and management"
- was given by Professor Ian Boyd, Director, Sea Mammal Research
Unit (SMRU), St Andrews University (2).
Figure 1:
Prof Ian Boyd (standing) and Ian Mitchell (seated)
Photo ©Kimpton Graphics
Professor Boyd gave a clear account of how the
scientific establishments interact with politicians (Parliament)
and civil servants (Management). In the present context Management
refers to the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department
(SEERAD) and to the Department of the Environment Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) in London in relation to matters that are not devolved.
Figure
2:
The interaction between policy, management and science
The diagram was kindly supplied by Professor Boyd
"Blue Skies Science" is science that
is conducted for its own sake without any pressure for it to be
relevant to the practical problems of the day. It is the science
that the scientists want to do out of their own curiosity, and is
carried out with possible application in the long term and could
be very important for the prosperity of the next and future generations.
By definition the direction which this form of
scientific endeavour pursues is independent of politicians or political
management. But it is expensive and needs to be funded out of the
public purse by such bodies as the National Research Councils, with
different Councils for the different academic disciplines. Increasingly,
funding may also come from the European Union.
Applied science is science that has application
to current problems that need to be resolved.
Policy is made by politicians at Westminster and
at Holyrood for matters that are devolved from Westminster to Scotland.
Here again the EU may be having an increasing influence. Policy
is influenced and implemented by Management.
Figure 3: Click
Here to View .pdf
The
current research/advice structure for UK seals
NERC = Natural Environment Research Council
SMRU = Sea Mammal Research Unit
The diagram was kindly supplied by Professor Boyd
Management is carried out by civil servants -
such as those who serve the Scottish Executive. As part of that
management there is consultation with members of the public or organised
groups that have a particular interest in the subject under review.
Such persons or groups are referred to as Stakeholders.
Although Professor Boyd made no political points
in his talk, the fact that well-funded single focus lobby groups
can have inappropriate dominance in their role as stakeholders is
reflected in the title (and subtitle) of this conference:
"Who rules rural Scotland?
A discussion on the extent to which we are governed by
a democratically elected Scottish Parliament
or by
the Scottish Executive civil servants and lobby groups"
Such lobby groups can have an undue amount of
influence at "Management" level interacting with civil
servants. They can also have facilitated access to enable them to
lobby members of Parliament.
Kirsty Macleod in her Case Study on the organisation
called "EnvironmentLINK" made particular reference to
this problem (3).
Ian Boyd, a zoologsit at St Andrews University
who it is understood is mainly supported by "Blue Skies"
funding, indicated that the balance between the several components
of the system (as illustrated in Figures 2 & 3) was changing
as a result of political and economic pressures. He did not elaborate
on what these pressures were, and the following comments are those
of the author of this present article.
Concern for Scottish Science
The changes that are happening with regard to
how science is supported through political and economic pressures
are a matter of much concern.
In terms of agricultural science the Scottish
Executive will be cutting its support by some 25%, with these moneys
being transferred to projects that are aimed at promoting "Human
Health", which has a massive budget of its own (4).
As well articulated by Professor John Hillman,
Director of the Scottish Crop Research Institute, there is also
much concern among scientists that the Scottish Executive is intending
to restrict funding to projects that are in keeping with government
policy of the day - thus reducing "Blue Skies" funding
(5, 6).
An additional problem is that the research that
a particular political party in power might wish to see pursued
may not be based on good scientific logic - but on some romantic
ideology deemed likely to be popular with voters. Furthermore, the
direction of such research may radically change at the next parliamentary
election.
To make matters worse different departments within
government may have conflicting priorities. An example would be
the directive from the UK Treasury that civil service jobs have
to be radically reduced. Fine, but how is that to be reconciled
with the Government's stated aim to improve animal health and welfare
when 70 jobs are to be lost at Pirbright and the Neuropathogenesis
Unit which is involved in BSE surveillance in Edinburgh (7).
Although the incidence of new cases of BSE in cattle and of CJD
in humans is declining, the lack of an adequate research base for
animal diseases contributed to the development and spread of BSE
and Foot and Mouth Disease in the first place. In relation to other
serious diseases of livestock - which can have such devastating
consequences on major aspects of the UK economy - the government's
idea of putting the onus on market forces to sort it out is dangerous
as it is unlikely to be effective in the face of a financially poor
livestock industry (8).
How is the funding of new veterinary school at
Nottingham to be reconciled with the fact that the government cannot
adequately fund the UK's five existing ones? (8).
A further problem which was highlighted
as the conference progressed was the poor quality of science that
was sometimes advanced by well-funded single focus lobby groups
or quangos in order to support their case (3, 9).
The problem is confounded when such questionable science is enthusiastically
promoted by such lobby groups through the media. The civil servants
and the politicians may than get the mistaken impression that such
media outpourings reflect the majority of public opinion (10,
11).
To add to the woes of some of our best scientists,
there is a move in Scotland to amalgamate the main state supported
research institutes and colleges into one. Rather than creating
a hoped for levelling up, it is more likely to produce a levelling
down of quality research (12).
If the situation was not bad enough, it is further
compounded by the government's desire to increase access to university
places to beyond what the universities can deliver at a quality
level. Good researchers will simply go elsewhere in the global market
for their valuable skills.
Conclusion
What Professor Boyd's talk did illustrate was
how political and economic pressures can influence what scientists
are enabled to do. It also illustrated the way whereby powerful
single purpose minority lobby groups could exert undue influence
through the stakeholders consultation mechanism, although he did
not allude to such a possibility.
Yet if we are to progress in a logical and effective
fashion with regard to rural matters, it is essential that the management
of the environment - and the people within it - is based on sound
science. Ian Boyd described how the administration of science works.
What the conference was going to consider is whether or not that
mechanism was working properly.
©land-care.org.uk
References
1. Irvine, James (2004). Review:
"Who governs rural Scotland?" Part 1: Introduction by
Kirsty Macleod
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 8 Nov 04, www.land-care.org.uk
Click Here
to View
2. Notice (2004). Programme of
PeopleTOO conference, Perth, 29th October: "Who governs rural
Scotland?"
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 13 Oct 04,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
3. Macleod, Kirsty (2004). Case
Study: EnvironmentLINK
To be reported shortly on www.land-care.org.uk
4. Editorial (2002). Further demise
of agriculture in Scotland thanks to damaging government policies.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed December 02,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
5. Hillman, John (2004). Science
and agriculture in modern Scotland
http://www.scri.sari.ac.uk/SCRI/Web/Site/home/PressReleases/040825.asp
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 27 Aug 04,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
6. Irvine James (2004). Review
of Royal Society of Edinburgh Conference:"Scotland's Land"
Click
Here to View
7. Institute of Animal Health
(2004). Public statement: IAH announces recovery plan, 11th Nov
2004
http://www.iah.bbsrc.ac.uk/news/20041AH46.htm
8. Article (2004). BVA Congress
2004: address by President Tim Greet
See ANIMAL HEALTH - GENERAL Homepage, filed 14 Aug 04, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
9. Robertson, Liz (2004). SNH
and the island of Arran. PeopleTOO conference, Perth
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 19 Nov 04,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
10. Editorial (2003). The public
supports Scottish farmers and fishermen more than the pollsters
imagined.
See FISHING Homepage, filed 02 Apr 03, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
11. Moran et al (2004). Beauty,
beast and biodiversity: what does the public want from agriculture?
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/agri/bbbwdp-oo.asp?mode=view
12. Strategy for agriculture,
biological and related research 2005-2010. Objective 2 - sustainability
of the SEERAD research base
http://www.scottishexecutive.gov.uk/consultations/agriculture/abrgsc-06.asp
|
